News & Discussion: O-Bahn

[Norman]

I have told you the answer but you admitted it to yourself by agreeing a rail would have been better.

I said heavy rail may be a better option in the future, but in the 1980s the bus option was definitely better. It's like building a tram system in Angle Vale this year when it won't be viable for decades. Instead, build a local bus system and it will do the same job at a lower cost. The tram can be installed whenever it becomes viable.

For example why is canberra spending $500m.

OK, let me get you another project. The CBD and South East Light Rail will cost, again for 12km, a total of $2.2 billion.

Decades to come? You must be insane . Or more likely a bureaucrat well versed in political expediency.

The track has a useful life of at least another 15-20 years, and it can be extended further if more intense maintenance is applied, like an overhaul.

Or more likely a bureaucrat well versed in political expediency.

I don't work for a politician, and never will. But when it comes to cost/benefit analysis, it applies to both private and public projects.

[citywatcher]

And another thing why would rail only be suitable if more people lived around the interchanges? They have interchanges now. Isn't it supposed to be a transportation route to the outer ne suburbs?

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[Norman]

And another thing why would rail only be suitable if more people lived around the interchanges? They have interchanges now. Isn't it supposed to be a transportation route to the outer ne suburbs?

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

If more people lived around the interchanges they don't have to drive to an interchange or catch 2 or more buses. They can simply catch the one service to the city or wherever they need to go. Most people, especially in Adelaide, don't like transferring services.

Building higher densities around interchanges can also provide extra services in the area, reducing the amount of people going to the city for simple things like shopping for groceries or going to work.

[citywatcher]

What rot. The outer ne suburbs were outlined for enormous growth from the time the project was proposed and indeed why it was proposed in the first place. That's why the superior rail option was first put forward. Comparisons with angle vale do you no favors

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[Norman]

What rot. The outer ne suburbs were outlined for enormous growth from the time the project was proposed and indeed why it was proposed in the first place. That's why the superior rail option was first put forward. Comparisons with angle vale do you no favors

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

Sure, they were given a task of accommodating a lot of people, but the planning at the time proposed suburban sprawl, not activity centres and TODs. That's the progress of planning, things change, and so do planning systems and policies.

But because houses are long-term assets, the sprawl will continue to stay in place for decades to come, which means that, again, the bus system is the better option until:
-People grow more accustomed to taller buildings in the suburbs
-Demand for higher density living outpaces the current priority areas such as the CBD and the 11 catalyst sites that were recently released by John Rau, which means places like TTP and Paradise will become the next best sites for infill and increase in density
-Commuters in Adelaide become more willing to use public transport in a muti-mode system and catch those feeder buses to the interchanges.

[citywatcher]

You can have both
A sprawl and higher density. We got the sprawl and now we'll get the higher density. A rail would have served the former better considering that sprawl is now several kilometers to the north of where the track stops. It must never be forgotten this was the original plan. It was only through political expediency that is a change of govt taking a cheaper short term option that we got the bus way instead. That govt lasted only one term and the obahn regrettably went ahead because it was too late to tear up those contracts. You can't rewrite history.

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[Norman]

Nothing stopping the government from extending the O-Bahn at anytime now, in the past or the future. Depends if the business case stacks up or there is political will. And higher density living in the suburbs was neither considered nor allowed until the last few years.

[Torrens_5022]

The O'Bahns biggest problem is the shear amount of buses needed about 40 an hour in peak, which would mean 2000 seated passengers, in contrast the Seaford line has 9 services through major stations in peak hour, which would equal the same 2000 seated passengers, this could easily double with 6 carriage trains (platform extension is need). The O'Bahn would work better as a hybrid light rail, long tram vehicles with 150 seats and high top speed, 15 to 20 services an hour, these could link into the Glenelg and Outer Harbor lines, Example out of peak O'Bahn would get 12 services an hour, Glenelg 6, Outer Harbor 3 / Port Adelaide (Semaphore) terminating 2, West Lakes 4, Grange 3. Mix in the new long and current shorter trams, it's a better option then having 40 to 60 buses floating around in peak hour.

[SouthAussie94]

The O'Bahns biggest problem is the shear amount of buses needed about 40 an hour in peak, which would mean 2000 seated passengers, in contrast the Seaford line has 9 services through major stations in peak hour, which would equal the same 2000 seated passengers, this could easily double with 6 carriage trains (platform extension is need). The O'Bahn would work better as a hybrid light rail, long tram vehicles with 150 seats and high top speed, 15 to 20 services an hour, these could link into the Glenelg and Outer Harbor lines, Example out of peak O'Bahn would get 12 services an hour, Glenelg 6, Outer Harbor 3 / Port Adelaide (Semaphore) terminating 2, West Lakes 4, Grange 3. Mix in the new long and current shorter trams, it's a better option then having 40 to 60 buses floating around in peak hour.

How does someone living in Redwood Park catch this hypothetical tram/train?

They have two options:
1. Drive to TTP. This causes congestion on local roads. Congestion means their travel time takes longer. Their car then needs to be parked somewhere. More carparks needed at TTP. This person is already in their car, why don't they just drive all the way to the city?

2. Catch a bus from Redwood Park to TTP. They need to walk from their house to the bus stop. They wait for the bus. The bus takes them to TTP. They wait for the tram/train. This involves extra waiting time. As numerous others have said previously, if people need to transfer services, the perceived inconvenience makes them more likely to use private vehicles.

Currently this person in Redwood Park can catch a bus a short distance from their house, stay on this bus all the way to the city. They arrive at their destination in the city.

Why don't we keep the O-Bahn, but also build a train, a tram and a Modbury Freeway along the O-Bahn corridor? That way, all commuters living in the NE suburbs will be able to take their prefered method of transport. Win Win!

[Norman]

Having a freeway along Linear Park would be a great mistake in my opinion. It would be an environmental disaster. If the O-Bahn isn't renewed, it should be replaced by heavy rail. Light rail isn't suitable. Build the light rail along our main streets instead.

[citywatcher]

Nothing stopping the government from extending the O-Bahn at anytime now, in the past or the future. Depends if the business case stacks up or there is political will. And higher density living in the suburbs was neither considered nor allowed until the last few years.

I was waiting for the old extend the obahn premise except that they didn't want it in the first place so they're not likely to build onto a system that has so many limitations. The problem is that they didn't plan ahead so now what route would such an extension take? The answer is it couldn't. By you're own admission the obahn worked because of the space of the linear park. . After modbury there is no such space. Guess what would work north of TTP ? A tram !

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[citywatcher]

The O'Bahns biggest problem is the shear amount of buses needed about 40 an hour in peak, which would mean 2000 seated passengers, in contrast the Seaford line has 9 services through major stations in peak hour, which would equal the same 2000 seated passengers, this could easily double with 6 carriage trains (platform extension is need). The O'Bahn would work better as a hybrid light rail, long tram vehicles with 150 seats and high top speed, 15 to 20 services an hour, these could link into the Glenelg and Outer Harbor lines, Example out of peak O'Bahn would get 12 services an hour, Glenelg 6, Outer Harbor 3 / Port Adelaide (Semaphore) terminating 2, West Lakes 4, Grange 3. Mix in the new long and current shorter trams, it's a better option then having 40 to 60 buses floating around in peak hour.

How does someone living in Redwood Park catch this hypothetical tram/train?

They have two options:
1. Drive to TTP. This causes congestion on local roads. Congestion means their travel time takes longer. Their car then needs to be parked somewhere. More carparks needed at TTP. This person is already in their car, why don't they just drive all the way to the city?

2. Catch a bus from Redwood Park to TTP. They need to walk from their house to the bus stop. They wait for the bus. The bus takes them to TTP. They wait for the tram/train. This involves extra waiting time. As numerous others have said previously, if people need to transfer services, the perceived inconvenience makes them more likely to use private vehicles.

Currently this person in Redwood Park can catch a bus a short distance from their house, stay on this bus all the way to the city. They arrive at their destination in the city.

Why don't we keep the O-Bahn, but also build a train, a tram and a Modbury Freeway along the O-Bahn corridor? That way, all commuters living in the NE suburbs will be able to take their prefered method of transport. Win Win!

The buses have to leave the track at modbury so in effect they are already feeder services

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[citywatcher]

An extension south was proposed while back but ultimately rejected

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[monotonehell]

...As for it being the best choice in hindsight and facts existing to back this up I believe you can interpret " facts " anyway you like especially if you commission the study. I doubt very much any independent study has been done to justify those claims...

Put the word facts in scare quotes and doubt as much as you want - you are wrong. There's a good amount of academically peer reviewed, published studies and reviews that were done by independent academic (not industry or lobby funded) bodies.

Have you looked? The University of Monash did a lot of work back last decade looking into perceptions versus reality of PT. I mention Prof Graham Currie earlier. He has published a large body of work around PT and has some very interesting findings which challenge peoples' held beliefs, all backed up with reasoned research and based in fact.

[citywatcher]

Thank you
And no I'm not wrong


Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk